xt74qr4nnz2c https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt74qr4nnz2c/data/mets.xml Kentucky University of Kentucky. Center for Developmental Change 1968 Other contributors include Herbert Hirsch. Photocopies. Unit 1, copy 2 is a photocopy issued by the clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. Report of a study by an interdisciplinary team of the University of Kentucky, performed under Contract 693 between the University of Kentucky Research Foundation and the Office of Economic Opportunity, 1965-68. Includes bibliographical references. Part of the Bert T. Combs Appalachian Collection. books  English  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection.  Community Action Program (U.S.) Economic assistance, Domestic--Kentucky--Knox county. Poor--Kentucky--Knox County Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 5: Poverty, Participationi, and Political Socialization text Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 5: Poverty, Participationi, and Political Socialization 1968 2016 true xt74qr4nnz2c section xt74qr4nnz2c POVERTY, PARTICIPATION, AND POLITICAL
SOCIALIZATION: A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY ACTION
PROGRAM AND THE POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION OF
THE APPALACHIAN CHILD
UNIT 5
HERBERT HIRSCH
August, 1968

 C O M M U N I T Y A C T I O N I N A P P A L A C H I A
An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" `
in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky
(Report of a study by an interdisciplinary team of the Uni-
versity of Kentucky, performed under Contract #693 between
the University of Kentucky Research Foundation and the Office
of Economic Opportunity, l965-68)
UNIT 5
POVERTY, PARTICIPATION, AND POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION:
A study of the relationship between Participation
in the Community Action Program and the Political
Socialization of the Appalachian Child
by
.·* Herbert Hirsch
  J .,.   I __  __ _ V ’

 Contents of Entire Report: A
COMMUNITY ACTION IN APPALACHIA
i This is one unit of a report which includes the following units,
each separately bound as is this one:
Unit l-—Paul Street, Introduction and Synthesis
Quality of Life in Rural Poverty Areas
Unit 2--Lowndes F. Stephens, Economic Progress in an Appalachian
County: The Relationship Between Economic ~
and Social Change
Unit 3--Stephen R. Cain, A Selective Description of a Knox County
Mountain Neighborhood
Unit 4--James W. Gladden, Family Life Styles, Social Participation
and Socio—Cultural Change
Change and Impacts of Community Action
Unit 5--Herbert Hirsch, Poverty, Participation, and Political A
Socialization: A Study of the Relationship
Between Participation in the Community Action
Program and the Political Socialization of
the Appalachian Child.
Unit 6--Morris K. Caudill, The Youth Development Program
Unit 7--Lewis Donohew and B. Krishna Singh, Modernization of
Life Styles
Unit 8-—Willis A. Sutton, Jr., Leadership and Community Relations
Unit 9--Ottis Murphy and Paul Street, The "Image" of the Knox County
Community Action Program
Specific Community Action Programs
Unit lO-—Ottis Murphy, The Knox County Economic Opportunity Anti-
Poverty Arts and Crafts Store Project
Unit ll-—Paul Street and Linda Tomes, The Early Childhood Program
Unit l2--Paul Street, The Health Education Program
’ Unit 13--Thomas P. Field, Wilford Bladen, and Burtis Webb, Recent A
Home Construction in Two Appalachian Counties

 ABSTRACT
POVERTY, PARTICIPATION, AND POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION:
A Study of the Relationship Between Participation
in The Community Action Program and the
Political Socialization of the
Appalachian Child
Herbert Hirsch
Department of Political Science

 O
ABSTRACT
POVERTY, PARTICIPATION, AND POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION
In recent years the study of political socialization has received
increasing attention from political scientists. This study contributes
to the continued growth and expansion by striking off in a different
direction. It differs from its predecessors in that it is primarily
focused upon the relationship between childhood participation in the
"War on Poverty" and the political socialization of the Appalachian child.
The study is based upon a random sample of fifth through twelfth
grade school children in rural Knox County, Kentucky. Three techniques
of data analysis were used. First, chi square was used as a data re-
duction device to ascertain whether or not there were significant differ-
ences between participating and non-participating children. Where dif-
V ferences were noted we further analyzed them using a technique developed
by Campbell and Stanley called "cross-lagged panel correlation? which
enables one to infer that A causes B more than B causes A based on the
time differential. Thirdly, we further isolated causal paths through the
use of the Simon-Blalock causal model.
At the outset we posited a two pronged model.
Socializing ---—----—------—---- ) Child -—-----—-—---------——— ) Output
agents participation
l Thus, we are asking two broad questions. First, what causes the child
to participate in the program, and second, what are the results of this
· participation?

 2
· It was found that three variables were directly related to childhood
participation in the program: parents' participation, father's education,
and distance the child lives from the center. Children whose parents
participated were more likely to participate; children whose fathers
had a relatively low level of education were more likely to participate
than children whose father's had a higher level of education, and
children who lived close to the center were more likdy to participate
then those who lived father away. Regarding output it was found that
the participation of the child manifested itself in three outputs.
First, participation caused the child to join a 4-H club, second, it
also caused him to join an atheletic team. Consequently, participation
seems to be resulting in the inculcation of a general participatory ethic
which, as the program continues in existence for several more years, may
be generalized into wider spheres of participatory activity. The third
output resulting from participation is an improved opinion of the pro-
gram. While the evidence is not overly encouraging, neither is it dis-
A couraging, for we have the indication, in a years time of operation, that
the center has begun to stimulate participatory activity on the part of
the child and has influenced at least one attitudinal dimension, i.e.,
opinion of the program.
The findings lead to several recommendations. First, in order to
stimulate greater child participation it is necessary that the program
concentrate upon inducing greater parental participation. The parent
U is a crucial link to the child. The child is probably relying upon the
presence of a participating parental model that causes him to partici-
pate. Since the modeling dynamic is so successful in inducing partici-
O
I
1
I
I

 3
‘ pation it should be extended and used as a means to achieve the desired
goals of the program. Second, the child must be provided with trans-
portation so he can reach the center. Third, if the center is to become
a truly efficacious agent it must provide the Appalachian child with
some means of implementing his desired life goals. Remembering that,
when asked what they would most like the center to do for them, the great
majority responded in terms of helping to find good jobs and getting a
good education leads us to recommend that the program place increasing
emphasis upon these dimensions. In so doing it is likely that partici-
pation will increase as well as the increasing likelihood that concrete
output of jobs and education will result in attitudinal change manifest- I
ing itself in social change.
In closing it is important to re—emphasize that the program live
up to its promises and to the child's "rising expectations".
O

 O
PREFACE
Since the birth of the "War on Poverty" many have talked about
its problems and promises. It has been criticized from right and
left and even from the center. Yet, amid all this verbiage no one
has brought the methodological sophisticatioxi and scientific rigor
of modern social science to bear upon the question: "Is the War on
Poverty having any affect upon those participating in it?" This
study utilizes the methods and theory of modern political science in
an attempt to provide precise and theoretically meaningful answers
to that very question. We have focused on the socializing agents that
motivate the Appalachian child to participate in the poverty war, and
upon any outputs that might manifest themselves as a result of this
participation. In answering these important policy questions we are
. moving political science out of the ivory toweg from which it has been
escaping for many years,and pushing it further into the area of public
policy. The present research does indeed have numerous implications
for the operation of the poverty progran»—implications which are spelled
out in the text. My fellow political scientists may legitimately accuse
me of slighting political socialization Eheory. If this be the charge then I
plead guilty, for the primary focus of the study was to ascertain the
- causes of_and results of the child's participation in the poverty war.
I Hence, the main concern is with policy results and causes, and only E
• secondarily with political socialization theory.
iii

 · I have many debts to acknowledge. This study was compeleted while
the author was part of a larger interdisciplinary rganr whose primary
purpose was to evaluate the affect of the "War on Poverty" in Knox County,
Kentucky. The data upon which this study is based were collected under
Contract #693 between the University of Kentucky Research Foundation and
the Office of Economic Opportunity. The grant was administered by the
University of Kentucky, Center for Developmental Change who also provided
office space and research assistance for the author.
Specific individuals made significant contributions to the study. I
gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the Superintendent of the school of
Knox County, Kentucky who gave us access to his students; of the Director
of the Testing Program of the Knox County schools who administered the
questionnaires; to the teachers who cooperated (some did not); and to
Dr. Ottis Murphy who served as field representative and who expedited
the collection of the data. I wish also to thank Dr. Paul Street,
Director of the Project, for his encouragement and support throughout
this enterprise; Robert Chanteloup, graduate student in Sociology, whose
4 programming and statistical assistance were instrumental in getting the
data processed; and my office mate, Professor Lewis Donohew, School of
Com unications, whose conversation and comments helped clarify many ideas.
Two final acknowledgements are important. A special note of thanks
to Miss Peggy Amato who typed the rough and final drafts of the study,
and to my own private proof-reader, my wife, who read many copies of
this work and commented upon them all. Her diligence is responsible for
V the lack of errors and for any clarity of expression that it may have.
"|’ iv

 · Finally, of course, I acknowledge, that any errors of interpretation
are probably my own.
H. H.
August 1968
O V

 O
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ........................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................... xi
INTRODUCTION .................. A ....... 1
Chapter
I. POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION AND THE COMMUNTIY ACTION
PROGRAM ....................... 3
’II. POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION: A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE
LITERATURE ON "AGENTS" AND "DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES". . 6
III. METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUE OF THE STUDY ........ 20
IV. PARTICIPATION PATTERNS ................ 28
V. SOCIALIZING AGENTS AND PARTICIPATION ......... 48
, VI. PROGRAM OUTPUTS ................... 70
VII. THE CO MUNITY CENTER AS AN AGENT OF POLITICAL
INFORMATION TRANSMISSION ............... 92
VIII. CONCLUSION ..................... _. 101
é BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 106
vi
O A  

 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. What Child Discusses with Counselor .......... 29
2. Opinion of YAP ..................... 30
3. Relationship between Opinion of YAP and Participation . 3l
4. Relationship between Opinion of YAP and Participation
Minus "No Opinion" Category .............. 32
5. Relationship between Participation and Distance of
Center from Home .................... 34
6. Relationship between Participation of Parents and
Participation of Child ................. 35
7. Relationship between Parents' Participation and Chi1d's
Opinion of the Program ................. 36
8. Relationship between Demographic Variables and
Participation: Time 1 ................. 37
9. Relationship between Demographic Variables and
Participation: Time 2 ................. 38
4 10. Relationship between Mother's Education and Chi1d's
Participation ..................... 38
11. Relationship between Father's Education and Chi1d's
Participation ..................... 39
12. Prediction Equations and Degree of Fit for Participatory
Model: First Half-—Mother's Education ......... 42
13. Prediction Equations and Degree of Fit for Participatory
Model: First Half-—Father's Education ......... 43
14. Prediction Equations and Degree of Fit for Participatory
. Model: First Half--Distance ....... . ....... 43
vii V

 Table Page
15. Relationship between Family-Related Variables and
Participation: Time l ................ 49
16. Relationship between Family-Related Variables and
Participation: Time 2 ................ 49
17. Relationship between Participation and Frequency Child
Discusses Politics with Family ............ 50
18. Relationship between Rank of Parents as Agents of
Information Transmission on Four Levels of Government
and Participation: Time l .............. 52
19. Relationship between Rank of Parents as Agents of
Information Transmission on Four Levels of Government
and Participation: Time 2 .............. 52
20. Relationship between Membership in 4-H Club and
Participation ..................... 54
21. Relationship between Membership in Peer Organizations
and Participation ................... 54
22. Relationship between School-Related Variables and
Participation: Time 1 ................ 56
23. Relationship between School-Related Variables and
Participation: Time 2 ................ 57
y 24. Relationship between Attendance in a "course that
required you to pay attention to current events,
public affairs, and politics" and Participation .... 57
25. Relationship between Membership on an Athletic Team
and Participation ................... 59
26. Relationship between Running for Office and
Participation ..................... 60
27. _Prediction Equations and Degree of Fit for i
Vparticipatory Model: First Half-—Civics Course .... 61 I
5
, viii —

 I Table Page
28. Prediction Equations and Degree of Fit for
Participatory Model: First Half——Run for Office . . . 61
29. Relationship between Participation and Media-
Variables: Time l .................. 63
30. Relationship between Participation and Media-
Variables: Time 2 .................. 63
31. Relationship between Self—Esteem and Participation . . 64
32. Relationship between Participation and Political
Party Preference ................... 72
33. Relationship between Participation and Attitudinal
Variables ....................... 73
34. Relationship between Civil Rights Attitudes and
Participation ..................... 74
35. Relationship between Participation and Faith-in-People 75
36. Relationship between Participation and Job
Aspirations ...................... 76
37. Relationship between Participation and Life Goals. . . 77
38. Prediction Equations and Degree of Fit for
Participatory Model: First Half--Desire to Get Ahead. 79
, 39. Relationship between Participation and What Child
Would Like Center to do for Him ............ 81
40. Prediction Equations and Degree of Fit for Output Side
of Participatory Model: Parents' Participation .... » 84
41. Prediction Equations and Degree of Fit for Output Side
of Participatory Model; Father's Education ...... 86
42. Prediction Equations and Degree of Fit for Output Side
of Participatory Model: Distance ........... 88
43. Rank of Center as an Agent of Information
Transmission on Four Levels of Government ....... 92
ix

 Table Page
44. Chi-Square Test of Difference between Comparative
Rankings of the Center as an Agent of Information
Transmission on Four Levels of Government ....... 93
45. Comparative Rankings of Agents of Information
Transmission on Four Levels of Government ....... 94
46. Relationship between Participation and Center's Rank as
p an Agent of Information Transmission on Four Levels of
Government ....................... 96
47. Prediction Equations and Degrees of Fit for a Model of
Participation and Output--Final Link .......... lOl
x

 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
l. Cross-Lagged Panel Correlation of Participation and
Political Cynicism .................. 23
2. Cross-Lagged Panel Correlation of Opinion and
Participation ..................... 33
3. Basic Participatory Model ............... 40
4. Basic Participatory Model: First Half Including
Coefficients ..................... 4l
5. Three Alternate Causal Models ............. 41
6. Final Participatory Model: First Half ........ 45
7. Cross-Lagged Panel Correlation of Discussion of
Politics with Family and Participation ........ 51
8. Cross—Lagged Panel Correlation of Participation and
Membership in 4-H Club ................ 55
9. Cross—Lagged Panel Correlation of Participation and
_ Attendance in a "Civics" Course ............ 58
U l0. Cross-Lagged Panel Correlation of Participation and
Athletic Team Membership ............... 59
ll. Cross-Lagged Panel Correlation of Participation and
Running for Office .................. 60
l2. Cross—Lagged Panel Correlation of Participation and
Desire to Get Ahead .................. 78
13. Cross—Lagged Panel Correlation of Participation and
Chance of Getting Ahead ................ 80
. X   .

 . Figure Page
14. Output Side of Participatory Model: Parents'
Participation ..................... 83
15. Output Side of Participatory Model: Father's
Education ..................... 85
16. Output Side of Participatory Model: Distance ..... 87
17. Participatory Model .................. 89
18. A Causal Model of Participation and Output ....... 101
xii
  l

 O
Introduction
In recent years the study of political socialization, i. e., the
process by which the child learns about the political culture in which
he lives, has received increasing attention from scholars.1 Interest in
the process by which the child learns to become a citizen is, however,
V not new. It goes back at least to the time of Plato and has been of
continued interest since then.2 Only within the last decade, however,
has systematic empirical research into the process been undertaken,3
with a corresponding rapid growth in the number of studies. The present
study contributes to this growth. It differs from its predecessors in .
that it is primarily focused upon "evaluation," which, as defined by
Hyman, "refers to the procedures of fact finding about the results of
planned social action . . ."4 The program to be evaluated is the Com-
munity Action Program with special emphasis given to the relationship
i between this program and the political socialization of the Knox County
child. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain whether or
not the child's participation in community center activities has any
affect upon his political socialization.
O

 -2-
Footnotes to Introduction
1 For an indication of the present volume of literature on politi-
cal socialization see: Jack Dennis, Recent Research on Political Social-
ization: A Bibliography of Published, Forthcoming, and Unpublished
Works, Theses, and Dissertations, and a Survey of Projects in Progress
(Medford, Mass.: Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship and Public
Affairs, 1967).
2 For a brief review of this literature see: Fred I. Greenstein,
Children and Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965),
pp. 1-5. Most reviews include the following: Plato, Republic, VIII and
V IK; Rousseau, Emile; Jean Bodin, Six Books of the Commonwealth; Hobbes,
Leviathan; and Locke, Two Treatises on Government.
3 Herbert Hyman's, Political Socialization: A Study in the Psy-
chology of Political Behavior (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959), is
usually considered to be seminal.
4 Herbert H an, Charles R. Wright, and Terence K. Hoskins, A li-
Ym .RR..
cations of Methods of Evaluation (Béfkéléyt University of California
Press, 1962), p. 3.

 O
Chapter I
Political Socialization and the Community Action Program
If we are to ascertain the impact of a social action program,the
objectives or goals of that program must be subject to measurement.
It is no mean trick to operationalize and measure abstract goals,for
to do so requires that they be reduced to a lower level of abstraction.
Hyman labels this step in the evaluation process,the translation of .
"broad and abstract statements into a series of simpler concepts."l
This operationalization leads one to inquire into the "intended" effects
of a program, and this is the second aspect of the present evaluation
` task. The question to be answered here is: "Has the child's partici-
pation had any differential impacts upon his political socialization in
the time period of this study?"
I To answer this question we have adopted the following strategy.
Participation is conceptualized as the main independent variable and is
cross—tabulated with certain hypothesized "output" variables. Thus, a
schematic diagram of the second half of the model:
Participation ..........................€> Outputs
This relatively simple conceptualization constitutes only half of
, our paradigm, for in evaluating a program's impact upon the individual,
one must examine not only the intended objectives or goals of the program, l
· but must also inquire into the participation patterns that have evolved.
Thus, the first two questions to be investigated are "Who participates?"
-3-

 -4-
· and "What causes the child to participate?"
It is the contention of the present author that the agents that
have been found and hypothesized to be influential in orienting the
child to political stimuli should also be involved in the socialization
of attitudes toward,and participation in,the program. This rounds out
the first half of the rough paradigm. Thus:
Socializing B Participation B Outputs
agents
The first question, which precedes and is integrally related to the
question of the induction of participation patterns is that of "Who
participates?" Here we mean to control demographic variables identified
by socialization scholars as being important in the process of political
l socialization in an attempt to ascertain whether they explain participa-
tion patterns. However, before we may proceed directly to the analysis,
two tasks must be accomplished. First, to review the political socializa-
tion literature dealing with the agents of socialization and the attendant
A demographic variables and, second, to discuss the methodological tech-
niques to be utilized in the study.
I

 Footnotes to Chapter I
1
Hyman, et. al., p. 8.
-5-

 O
Chapter II
Political Socialization: A Brief
Review of the Literature on "Agents"
and "Demographic Variables"
According to Greenstein and Mitchell,most of the extant literature
on political socialization may be summarized under a paraphase of the
Lasswellian formulation of the general process of communication: "(a)
who, (b) learns what, (c) from whom, (d) under what circumstances (e)
A with what effects?"l The present review deals only with the first and
- third questions, and makes no claim to comprehensiveness.
"Who Learns?"
According to Froman:
The primary question in political socialization is
"how do children learn politically relevant attitudes
. and behaviors?2
Most of the studies have attempted to answer this question by concen-
trating, for the most part, on young children.3 The rationale for concen-
trating on this population is based on two propositions. First, that
basic orientations toward politics are learned in late childhood and
early adolescence,4 and second, that early socialization has important
consequences for the stability of political systems and for adult poli-
I tical behavior.5 »
There is indeed evidence to substantiate the first proposition.
According to Greenstein, age is one of the most important factors influ-
O
encing the political socialization of the child.6 Easton and Hess have,

 -7-
· in fact, claimed that "the truly formative years of the maturing member
of a political system would seem to be the years between the ages of
three and thirteen."7 Indeed, a prominent finding of many studies is
that the young child acquires certain political orientations at an
early age.
For example, at a very young age,the child has an awareness of the
President. The child's image of the President is positive and highly
idealized, but suffers diminution as the child gets older.8 Other
findings related to age are: (l) that by the time the child is in the
fourth grade six out of ten "were able to state whether their party
preference was Republican or Democratic. . .",9 (2) a cynical attitude
toward politics increases as age increases, 10 and (3) as the child
gets older he is less likely to state that he would ask his parents for
voting advice.l1 It is evident, therefore, that at an early age the
child has become aware of political figures, has acquired a preference
for a political party and holds certain political attitudes. These
4 factors appear early in the life cycle, but are subject to change as
the child matures.
Factors other than age have been shown to relate to childhood poli-
3 tical socialization. The two primary ones being sex and social class.l2
Regarding sex, findings are similar to those concerning the poli-
I tical behavior of adults. That is, boys know more about politics than
girls;13 boys are more interested in, and active in, politics than girls;14
. and boys are more likely to read about politics in the newspaper.15
Gender does not have any relationship to the child's future expec-
tation of whether or not he will vote when he is twenty—one.16
I

 -8-
· In regard to class, one finds that, in general, children of the
upper socio—economic strata are more likely to express an interest in
politics and to be more active politically than children of lower status.17
The relationship between socio-economic status and political socializa-
tion, however, is not always clear. For example, Greenstein found that
there is no difference between the classes in ability to identify
political figures, and that children in both status groups indicate that
they prefer one political party over another.l8 According to Greenstein,
these differences in political socialization, which are related to sex
and social class factors, "have already begun to be established by nine
years of age. . ."l9
The young child, consequently does acquire certain political orien-
tations at an early age. However, the question of whether or not these
early years are the "truly formative years" in the development of poli-
tical attitudes has not been, and cannot be, answered from the data
gathered by any of the studies thus far concluded. Only a design incor-
I porating a sample composed of a wide dispersion of ages, either a cross-
sectional or a longitudinal study, could adequately answer this question.2O
p Indeed, there is evidence to show that Easton and Hess may have been
premature in their conclusions. In a review of the psychological and
sociological literature on socialization, William Sewell demonstrates
that, while early learning is important, social-role learning persists .
throughout ones life cycle.2l Other studies cast further doubt on
. Easton and Hess's conclusion. For example, studies of the socialization
of American state legislators point out the fact that, while a large
percentage of them remember being socialized in childhood, there were
· a considerable percentage who were socialized later in life.22

 -9-
· All this is not to deny the importance of early socialization exper-
iences, it is to take issue with the static conception of socialization
that political scientists have adopted.23 Not only have we concentrated
our research attention on children, but we have concentrated primarily
on a certain age group (2-13). By so restricting our attention, we
have been unable, or unwilling, to deal with a basic assumption upon
which research into childhood socialization is based. We have been
unable to answer what is perhaps the key theoretical question: "How
does early socialization relate to later political behavior?" Or, as
Prewitt phrases it, "do individuals marked for an adult political career
experience initial political socialization in a manner which increases
the probability that they will select themselves or be selected for poli-
tical leadership?"24
"From Whom?"; The Agents of Political Socialization
The question of "From Whom?" the child learns about politics reminds
V one of Mark Twain's oft-quoted statement about the weather. To para-
phrase, one could say that everyone talks about the agents of sociali-
zation but no one does anything about them. Most scholars agree, with
little or no data to back them up, that all of the following act as agents
of political socialization: family, school, church, peer groups and youth
organizations, social class, ethnic origin, geographic region, and mass
media.25 All of these formulations are hypothetical. By far the most
· comprehensive inquiry into the agents of political socialization is that
‘ of Hess and Torney. They divide "socializing contexts" into three gener-
al types.
O

 -10-
. The first type includes institutions of well-
defined structure and organization: the family,
school, and church.
The second type of socializing influence
occurs in larger social settings. The most impor-
tant of these social contexts are: social class,
ethnic origin, and geographical region.
A third type of influence in the socializing
process derives from the child's personal charac-
teristics.26
According to them, the first type influences the child by "direct
teaching of political attitudes and values and by inducting him into the
behavior and roles appropriate to family, school, or church membership.
These values are then generalized to attitudes toward political life of
the community and nation."27
Most scholars agree that the family is one of the most potent
sources of political socialization. According to Hess and Torney the
family acts as an agent in three ways. First, it transmits attitudes to
the child; second, the parent serves as a model to the child; third,
role definitions and expectations within the family structure are
. . . . 28
generalized to political objects.
Probably the strongest finding to date, involving the family as an
agent, is the child's tendency to assimilate the party preference of his
parents.29 The parent also is the most preferred source of voting ad-
vice for the child.3O Even this relationship is not as simple as Green-
stein presented it. Hess and Torney demonstrate that age acts as an
intervening variable. That, as the child grows older, he looks less to
the parent for political information.31 Hence, the parent is more salient
as an agent to the youngest child.
Hess and Torney find that other factors had little influence on the
· parent as an agent. The two they investigated were the absence or pre-
sence of the father in the home, and the status of inter—familial rela-

 -11-
· tionships.32 They find that father-absence makes no difference in
attitudes toward authority,33 and that "children who see their fathers
as being powerful tend to be more informed and interested in political
matters."34
The basic finding involving the family is, then, that the child is
most likely to acquire his party preference from his parents, and that
the child's perception of the family relationship influences this pro- _
cess. V •
The second well-defined structure which acts as an agent of political _
socialization is the school. Hess and Torney disagree with Greenstein.
While the latter regards the family as the primary agent, the former feel
that "the public school is the most important and effective instrument of
political socialization in the United States."35 The school operates as
both a manifest and a latent form of transmission.36 It is manifest
when it socializes directly through cla